Porsche v 240Z

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
Actually a 996 4s and although not as old as the Z its still a 911 and not vastly different from its older brothers.

Sorry yes, 996. My mistake.

"Not vastly different"? You know what I'm going to say to that though don't you? I don't think a 996 Carrera 4S is comparable to an early 70s 911 in any meaningful sense. Sorry but you might as well be comparing a fridge with the 240Z. You've built up a proper relationship with the 240Z and it actually means something to you and your family, and I can't see that happening with something like a 996 C4S.

I don't think we are going to see a rush of guys from the DDK forum dumping their 60s and 70s 911s and looking for S30-series Zs. If there are one or two, it'll be because they are effectively 'downsizing' and/or cashing in on the difference between what they originally paid and what they can sell for now. And I still fear your average old Porsche fan probably thinks the early Zs are, when all is said and done, a bit primitive, feel a bit cheap on the inside, don't have much *brand value* and are a bit expensive now for what they are...
 

Paul Henley

Club Member
Point of order: The comparison being made was between a 240Z and a 997 Carrera 4S. Hardly an age-for-age, like-for-like, cost-for-cost, rarity-for-rarity comparison is it? It's not hard to imagine why somebody could be quite attached to one and not the other.

If it was between a 1972 Datsun 240Z and, say, a 1972 Porsche 911S it might well be a different story I'd imagine...

For me personally it wouldn't.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
For me personally it wouldn't.

Is that because of your emotional attachment to this particular 240Z though?

If I was offered a choice between a bone stock '72 240Z and a bone stock '72 911S, I know which one I'd choose. No brainer. My heart on the other hand might ask if it could have both, or was allowed to modify the 240Z...
 

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
Point of order: The comparison being made was between a 240Z and a 997 Carrera 4S. Hardly an age-for-age, like-for-like, cost-for-cost, rarity-for-rarity comparison is it? It's not hard to imagine why somebody could be quite attached to one and not the other.

If it was between a 1972 Datsun 240Z and, say, a 1972 Porsche 911S it might well be a different story I'd imagine...

A 911S; yes - it probably would be - below a production table I found :

PRODUCTION PORSCHE 911 S
911 2.0 S : 5056 ex
911 2.2 S : 4691 ex
911 2.4 S : 5094 ex
911 2.7 S : 2908 ex

and the 240Z outsold it at a ratio of 10:1.

But compare a 911S and a PS30 - now THAT would be interesting.:EXTRAcool:
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
A 911S; yes - it probably would be - below a production table I found :

PRODUCTION PORSCHE 911 S
911 2.0 S : 5056 ex
911 2.2 S : 4691 ex
911 2.4 S : 5094 ex
911 2.7 S : 2908 ex

and the 240Z outsold it at a ratio of 10:1.

I'm confused both by the relevance of those numbers (so the 240Z "outsold" just one variant of the contemporary 911 range. What about the rest...?) and by the apparent flip-flopping over production numbers/sales and apparent popularity.

One minute 911s are "everywhere" today ('there's too many of them') and the next minute the 240Z outsold them, so it's 'better'?
 

Mick Cliff

Well-Known Forum User
As the instigator of this thread I will add the following comments:
I had Porsches for 18 years, with the majority being pre-'73. The last one was an RS Carrera replica which was correct in every detail bar the chassis number(!) which I ran for 10 years. It was fun, it was quick, it was probably lethal in the wrong hands. Contrary to most opinions, it was eminently fixable on a DIY basis, helped by the plethora of spares availability and the knowledge and helpfulness of, in particular, DDK.
I had always 'promised' myself that I'd sell it when I reached the grand old age of 70, which I did. And yes, I 'made' money over the 18 years of Porsche ownership due to their astronomical increases in values. However, over those 18 years I spent a LOT on maintenance and 'improvements' so probably broke even overall, which means that Porsche ownership probably cost me nothing....
With the Porsche itch comprehensively scratched I spent a couple of years entertaining Mercedes' with a 1991 500SL. Wafting along in the open air was quite delightful but eventually I realised that I was scared of something going wrong with the electronics which would probably not be fixable without specialist help and a bucket full of money! I was also missing the rawness of an 'early' car and their analogue approach compared to a more modern digital approach.
So the hunt was on and fortuitously MikeB had advertised his car on DDK at the time, and OKJ was bought....
I have not had much use out of the car for the past 12 months due to a house move, but this year should change that!
Impressions? Well the Z is beautifully balanced and reasonably quick for a 72 year old (me, not the car!). Compared to the RS it's plush (the RS was a Lightweight so trim was sparse), quiet, economical, fairly relaxing to drive.
A few big drawbacks though - spares availability; specialists in my area of Yorkshire; the constant questions from Joe Public (what is it?!), but most like it.
A 911S is not comparable to a 240Z - the age-old saying about early 911's is 'It's not acceleration, it's violence' stands true in my opinion. I can compare one of my Porsches (a 912 rally prepared car) to the Z - very quick from A to B without endangering one's life. A pre-'73 911 is quite capable of 'biting' you, if your own skill does not equate to the car's capability!

The choice is all down to your own personal parameters at the time of buying.... and I'm glad I made the choice.
 

JK240

Club Member
Interesting read. I have a 911 (996) that I've had for about 3 years and although I enjoy the car on the rare occasions I actually get to use it if I were to choose which one to part with it never be the Z.
Many reasons, I've put a large part of my life into my Z, it's rarer, it's "cooler", I can work on it and fix it, If I ever sold it I doubt I could replace it. The Porsche is a great car, but it's replaceable any day of the week, I'd struggle to replace the Z with another.
Interestingly, if you were to ask my 2 sons aged 26 and 36 they would both say that they prefer the Z :)
View attachment 29248
I agree with pretty much all of that Paul.

I sold my Z last year from necessity, and recently bought a 1994 Porsche 968 Sport which, whilst not a 911 I realise, are still reasonably rare as there were only 306 uk cars built and is a super car, it does everything really well, everything works, it has reasonable performance and looks good but it has no soul like the Z had and I doubt I will ever be as attached to it as I was the Z and will probably go far sooner than the last car did, fortunately they are appreciating too, so at least I wont lose any money on it :)

And my son whose 21 agrees too..!

Cheers

JK
 
Last edited:

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
I'm confused both by the relevance of those numbers (so the 240Z "outsold" just one variant of the contemporary 911 range. What about the rest...?) and by the apparent flip-flopping over production numbers/sales and apparent popularity.

One minute 911s are "everywhere" today ('there's too many of them') and the next minute the 240Z outsold them, so it's 'better'?
You're confused ?

No-one mentionned the 911 'S' until you. You leapt on the single most interesting 911 of the era and build a case around it being a different story. Compared to the 'bone-stock' 240Z, yes, the competition-inspired 911 will compare favourably but to other 'lesser', early 911s, the 240Z is really not too bad. So now, you say "what about the rest"?" So, what about them ? And if you want to go down that route, what about the rest of the S30s ? Shall we compare PS30-SBs to 911RSs ? Shall we compare GLS30s to 2.4Ts or the 2.7 variants ? Stop moving greased goalposts to pick a fight :boxing:.

By the way, what does that 'ex' suffix stand for? Is it short for 'Export'?
Examples NOT export.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
You're confused ?

No-one mentionned the 911 'S' until you. You leapt on the single most interesting 911 of the era and build a case around it being a different story. Compared to the 'bone-stock' 240Z, yes, the competition-inspired 911 will compare favourably but to other 'lesser', early 911s, the 240Z is really not too bad. So now, you say "what about the rest"?" So, what about them ? And if you want to go down that route, what about the rest of the S30s ? Shall we compare PS30-SBs to 911RSs ? Shall we compare GLS30s to 2.4Ts or the 2.7 variants ? Stop moving greased goalposts to pick a fight :boxing:.

Sean, the reason I brought up the 911S is because it illustrates the point that 'Porsche 911' doesn't mean just *one thing*. Now, as in period, there were 'entry level' 911s, mid-range 911s, very sporting 911s and super duper competition-oriented 911s all being sold side-by side. It's a lot more complicated than '911 vs 240Z'. The 911S models that were sold at the same time as the 240Z are - I think - excellent cars. You know I'm a die-hard S30-series Z fan, but for me the 911S (let alone the 911T/R or 911R) is far superior to any of the 240Z models as a sporting drivers car in a stock-for-stock comparison. Early 911Ss are expensive for a reason.

About sales figures: I'm still confused over the difference between the "they are everywhere" type comments about 911s and the much vaunted "outsold them by 10:1" type sales figures for the 240Z. I think there are some weird comparisons being made (you might think it's me that's making them of course...!).

I'm always dismayed by any 'us vs them' type attitudes between car enthusiasts. I often see a lot of negativity thrown Porsche's way and it just doesn't make any sense to me. My eyes were first opened to Porsche in the late 1960s when I was taken to race meetings by my father. The big revelation for me was the 1970 Le Mans 24hrs race, where we watched the top racing sports cars of the period being followed around the circuit by assorted 911s. Walking around the paddock and parking areas, there were many similar-looking cars parked up too. After the race I was allowed to sit in some of the race cars, and I was hooked. I've been a Porsche fan ever since, but their bread and butter stuff doesn't really interest me. I'm besotted by their race cars and the homologation specials.

I really don't understand people treating cars and car manufacturers like they are rival football teams. I'm a car fan, not just a Porsche or Nissan fan. If I was in a position where I could, I'd own both...
 

Mick Cliff

Well-Known Forum User
People - don't get hung up on 911's! The thread is headed Porsche v 240Z....
A 912 is the 'cheaper' car that's 911 shaped and I would match those with the Z
 

Woody928

Events Officer
Staff member
Club Member
People - don't get hung up on 911's! The thread is headed Porsche v 240Z....
A 912 is the 'cheaper' car that's 911 shaped and I would match those with the Z

But my 240z is clearly a better car than a 911 in every respect :p
I challenge you to find a forum where you'll get a sensible and unbiased response whatever the marque :lurk:
 

chrisvega

Well-Known Forum User
Would never match a 4 cylinder factory standard 912 with a factory 240Z Mick (I have owned four 912 and plenty of 911 to qualify the opinion)
Performance wise they are miles apart.
I do love the 912 (classic shape and purity of line) don't get me wrong. The beauty of the 912 compared to the early 911 is that you can drive them to the limit and never worry about going through the next hedge backwards, but a standard 240Z would blow a standard 912 into the weeds.

I think a fair up to date comparison would be exactly what I have sitting outside now, 1975 911S 2.7 (well this one has 3.0SC upgrade) next to a 240Z. Assume they were both factory (let's pretend).

In a similar condition (superb) they will be similar price £ 30/35k so in effect you do have a straight choice, classic Porsche 911 v 240Z.

Not the most desirable 911 and cheaper than the classic shaped chrome bumpered cars that ran alongside the 240Z pre-74, but still a very nice car and a 'proper' 911.

When people mention there are thousands of 911 around on the roads it is a sweeping and too generalised a statement. If we consider the 'classic' Porsche only, this means air cooled and if we want to be more restrictive delete the 993 as although it was the last 'classic' air cooled 911 model it is still too modern. So we have 911 built in the 60/70/80/early 90s and you just don't see that many on the road on a daily basis. Simple reason most/all will now be owned by enthusiasts and not used as 'dailys' same as most Zs.

Go up to the Cheshire golden triangle and you will see a 911 every time you venture out but we are not comparing like for like if we count the 996 (sorry Paul ;)/997/991 models).
 

Mick Cliff

Well-Known Forum User
....The beauty of the 912 compared to the early 911 is that you can drive them to the limit and never worry about going through the next hedge backwards, but a standard 240Z would blow a standard 912 into the weeds....
Agree with the first part but not the second part......I think they're equals

Each to their own I suppose
 

MikeB

Well-Known Forum User
Folks, let’s compare eggs with eggs

In 1971, the Z was 2.4 litre and the 911 was 2.2. The Datsun came in one spec, at circa 150hp, the 911 came in three, the 120 hp T, the 150 hp E and the 180 hp S. Ironically the E was quicker to 100 MPH, but the S was quicker beyond that up to 140+ MPH. I can assure you that compared to a std 240 the power delivery of thee S was, as Mick has said, muck more brutal, I know I had one.

The 240 is a softer car in that sense, but in its own way no less enjoyment to drive.

Now the gent who has posed the question on DDK has an early 911 chassis (1973) combined with a 1980s 3.2 engine, so at 235hp it has some grunt.

So he’s asked how a reasonably std 240Z would compare.

I’ve been lucky to drive both period spec cars and a later 3.0 litre 911 RS Rep. My answer would be that both the 240 and the 911 deliver, but they do it in separate ways, but each is equally enjoyable.

They are two different answers to the same question.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
Folks, let’s compare eggs with eggs

In 1971, the Z was 2.4 litre and the 911 was 2.2. The Datsun came in one spec, at circa 150hp, the 911 came in three, the 120 hp T, the 150 hp E and the 180 hp S. Ironically the E was quicker to 100 MPH, but the S was quicker beyond that up to 140+ MPH. I can assure you that compared to a std 240 the power delivery of thee S was, as Mick has said, muck more brutal, I know I had one.

If it's to be eggs with eggs, I'd like to point out that '240Z' didn't mean just *one* thing (there were some pretty radical differences between sub-variants, markets and regional spec) and it would be fairer to quote 'S30-series Z range' and a chosen period for comparison. I choose 1969 through 1973 as an example.

You've compared the 240Z at 2.4 litres with the 911 range at 2.2 litres in 1971. Well, in 1969 (the year the S30-series Z range was launched) the 911 range was pegged at 2.0 litre capacity. By 1971 it was 2.2 litres - as you have pointed out - but by 1972 the 911 range had 2.4 litres and in 1973 the Carrera RS model debuted with a 2.7 litre engine and 210bhp. Top of the S30-series Z range during that same '69 through '73 period was the PS30 model Fairlady Z432 with a 2.0 litre engine and 160ps (not forgetting Nissan's 911R-inspired PS30-SB model Fairlady Z432-R, which was a superlight version of the 432).

I think it's important to remember the variations of the '240Z' specs. Anybody looking to buy a good condition 240Z these days - and that includes any DDK forum refugees - might well be forced to look at ex-USA market cars as their best options economically. That means an arguably softened-up and dumbed-down spec that might well require a fair bit of modification to bring it up to expectations. Worth bearing in mind.
 

Rob Gaskin

Treasurer
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jonathan, the Sam (your old car) certainly has soul - something very difficult to buy. That's why cars should be road-tested when buying, your car Jonathan when seen in an internet advert or on an auction site just can't get that across. There is a lot more to cars than metal and plastic - that's why we love them.

Anyway this is an unfair comparison - should we really be comparing a finely balanced purpose-built 'sports' car with a glorified VW Beetle? Datsun got it right first time, Porsche have been trying for many many years with the same car - it's about time they gave up.

Joking apart the comparison is between a Japanese, front-engined, water cooled car and a German, rear engined, air-cooled car. The discussion has gone into minute detail now and really the people who have owned both are the best to answer IMO, some will like to drive the Datsun, some the Porsche. When I did some road rallying in the early 70s Harold Morely used a 2.7 Carrera and Kevin Videan a 240Z both effective because it was the crews that were the main strength. The spectators loved them both as I did.
 

Mick Cliff

Well-Known Forum User
...road rallying in the early 70s Harold Morely used a 2.7 Carrera and Kevin Videan a 240Z both effective because it was the crews that were the main strength. The spectators loved them both as I did.
Ah! The Motoring News series....wonderful! I only did one, the Illuminations.
The Morley car is (or was) for sale at Specialist Cars of Malton. Be sure to be sat down if you ask the price!
 

Jay.

Club Member
Interesting debate, I enjoyed the DDK read.

I've got a 996 Turbo and a 240z and trying to compare the two is a waste of time. You'd have to compare it with a 70's 911 which are still a "better" car overall - the build quality, driving experience, etc - but they're not "as" special as the Z. I love the 240z, it's a fun car that doesn't need to go fast and can be relatively easy to fix in most cases. An old 911 requires expensive parts and if you're looking at it from an investment perspective (to keep the purists happy) then you really can't do much to it without risking devaluing (including driving it!)

It's a shame the Z's are getting expensive as I think one of the things that attracted them to a lot of people (especially over in the states) is that they were quite inexpensive ways to have a fun/different sports car
 
Interesting debate, I enjoyed the DDK read.

I've got a 996 Turbo and a 240z and trying to compare the two is a waste of time. You'd have to compare it with a 70's 911 which are still a "better" car overall - the build quality, driving experience, etc - but they're not "as" special as the Z. I love the 240z, it's a fun car that doesn't need to go fast and can be relatively easy to fix in most cases. An old 911 requires expensive parts and if you're looking at it from an investment perspective (to keep the purists happy) then you really can't do much to it without risking devaluing (including driving it!)

It's a shame the Z's are getting expensive as I think one of the things that attracted them to a lot of people (especially over in the states) is that they were quite inexpensive ways to have a fun/different sports car

Define 'better'? I don't think a base spec early 70's 911 does compare. However as eluded to, the none base ones are something lovely.

I think 240'z prices rising is a good thing, as they're finally getting looked after properly. I'd say currently its cheaper and easier to restore an early 911 properly as all the parts are freely around.
 
Top